Make no mistake 'armed men' in Crimea represent the gravest crisis in East/West relations since the end of the cold war
A revolution in Ukraine leads to the most serious geopolitical crisis in Europe for over 35 years. What does the west appear to be doing about it? Absolutely nothing. Many will argue that the west should not get overly involved; however, Judicial Cat argues that the apparent invasion of Crimea by troops from the Russian Federation is merely the latest stage of a longer term strategy by Vladimir Putin to reconstitute the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in so far as actual territory and influence is concerned.
Situation in Crimea is straight out of 'Invasion 101'
It all started on the morning of 27 February 2014 when 'armed men' appeared to take over the Regional Parliament. The 'armed men' displayed no insignia but wore uniform and had equipment remarkably similar to that of troops from the Russian Federation. Events moved quickly with the takeover of two airports on 28 February 2014, the surrounding of a local Television Station, and (by the end of the day) reports of as many as 2000 Russian troops being flown in. Rumours of the closure of local airspace and the disconnection of telecommunications all added to the feeling that an invasion was well and truly underway. Late on 28 February 2014 United States President Barack Obama appeared to finally acknowledge the seriousness of the situation without giving any idea of what the response of the west would be, if anything. Judicial Cat offers an analogy. Imagine you are in the UK and wake up one morning to find (for argument sake) troops from the United States surrounding City Hall in London, the BBC, and maybe Heathrow airport. That would be a blatant breach of all agreements permitting US troops to be based in the UK. Why should it be any different for Russian troops based in part of Ukraine.
Putin's 'Real' Agenda
Let us not consider at the moment how Putin runs affairs in Russia. He is supposedly elected; however, it can be argued that the veracity of the elections in Russia are questionable at best. That is before we even consider the complete lack of respect for basic human rights within that country on a scale that would make any previous Soviet leader 'proud'. Instead consider Putin's background; namely, he is ex KGB and is reported to have stated that the breakup of the USSR was the single most disastrous event of the twentieth century. Russia considers countries such as Ukraine to be their 'near abroad'. In other words well within the Russian sphere of influence. Putin is alleged to not even consider countries like Ukraine to be 'real' or 'sovereign'. When considering an agenda one does not have to go much further than the 2008 invasion of Georgia and the subsequent occupation of South Ossetia. Although Russia was nominally led by Dmitry Medvedev at the time of the Georgian invasion make no mistake that event was Putin's call (who remained as Prime Minister). The pretext for that invasion was to 'protect' Russian ethnic 'citizens' who just so happened to have been fast tracked for Russian passports. The same modus operandi is in operation in Crimea today with reports of the Russian Foreign Ministry promising to fast track passport applications for Russian ethic 'citizens' based in that region of Ukraine. And on 1 March 2014 came reports of the 'regional leader' in Crimea inviting troops from Russia to protect the local population and institutions. It is a well tried and tested formula going back hundreds of years for any country wishing to legitimise what is a good old fashioned invasion and occupation of a region of another sovereign state.
Should Putin's Crimean adventure prove successful then where will he turn his attentions to next? That is why the current events in Crimea are dangerous and represent a major landmark in East/West relations.
A quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing
Students of history will recognise the above as a quote from former United Kingdom Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938. This was the reaction of the then UK government to the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany. Hitler, it will be recalled, was attempting to unite and 'protect' German speaking peoples. Within a year the second world war was underway when Hitler marched into a country for which the UK was not prepared to stand aside and allow to be annexed by a much larger bullying neighbour. And this is the problem with Crimea. A lot of readers will not realise that the UK as well as the United States of America are both bound to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine by reason of being signatories to the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. Russia is also a signatory to this memorandum, which came about at the time Ukraine relinquished control of its share of the Soviet nuclear arsenal.
International lawyers will no doubt argue what exactly the signatories must do in the event that the territorial integrity of Ukraine is violated (which it already is) but it seems to Judicial Cat that, realistically, the UK and USA will not intervene militarily to protect Ukraine. Despite the assertions of many internet 'doom mongers' the west is not going to risk world war three over Ukraine. That being said the west must do something and the reaction must be strong.
What the west can, if anything, do
The problem with Putin is that he now has reason to believe that he can 'get away with it'. Nothing was done about the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and, in all probability, nothing will be done about Ukraine 2014. The only way to stop a bully (and Putin's Russia are bullies) is to standup to the bully and take it on directly. In summary Russia must feel the hurt were it will notice it most and that is economically. The west must give Russia a deadline to stand down the 'armed men' in Crimea or implement tough and immediate economic and other sanctions including freezing assets of Russian leaders, withdrawing visas from Russian citizens, refusing to deal with Russia in international organisations such as the G8 and generally treating Russia as an international pariah state.
The eastern flank of NATO should be bolstered and membership offered to states such as Georgia and Moldova. The west must send out a clear message that the expansionist agenda of Putin will not be tolerated any further.
Closing thoughts
Judicial Cat leaves you with this thought. Putin succeeds with the annexation of Crimea and decides, maybe some years later, that Russia needs to protect Russian speaking people in Lativa, Lithuania, or Estonia. The Baltic States are members of both NATO and the EU. At that stage there would be no discussions, debates about whether invasions are not invasions etc, there would be a major war and all that would entail. That is why this modern day form of 1930s style appeasement needs to stop and the west needs to put down a very clear line in the sand.
